Brewer v. Housatonic Railroad

107 Mass. 277
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 107 Mass. 277 (Brewer v. Housatonic Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brewer v. Housatonic Railroad, 107 Mass. 277 (Mass. 1871).

Opinion

Morton, J.

Both parties agree that the defendants entered into a contract to buy a certain quantity of wood of the plaintiff at five dollars a cord, and that the plaintiff had drawn this quantity to the defendants’ depot. The defendants contended that this wood was not of the same kind or quality as the wood bargained for. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the wood was of the same land and quality; and he also claimed that, if it was not, yet the defendants had accepted it as delivered under the contract. This was the only controversy between the parties.

Upon the question of acceptance, the defendants asked their superintendent and their agent, each, whether “ he ever accepted the wood.” The court excluded the question, but ruled “ that the defendants might show what was done, or what was not done, by them, in reference to the wood.” This would include what was said or left unsaid by them to the plaintiff. We are of opinion that the defendants have no ground of complaint. They were allowed to put in all the facts. The question put called for a conclusion or opinion of the witness as to whether what'had been done or said, or left undone or unsaid, by the defendants, amounted in law to an acceptance; and was therefore incompetent.

But we are of opinion that the testimony offered, of the value of the wood actually delivered, should have been admitted. The fact that the wood delivered was of much less value than five dollars a cord, if proved, would have some tendency to show that [279]*279it was not of the kind and quality bargained for. The same question arose in Upton v. Winchester, 106 Mass. 830, and the evidence was held to be admissible. See also Bradbury v. Dwight, 3 Met. 81.

The other exception taken at the trial was not argued, and we consider it waived.

Exceptions sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Arkansas Valley Bank v. Esser
224 P. 227 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1924)
Guglielino v. Cahill
70 N.E. 435 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Plunger Elevator Co. v. Day
68 N.E. 16 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Calhoun v. Paule
26 Mo. App. 274 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1887)
Buswell Trimmer Co. v. Case
11 N.E. 549 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)
Norris v. Spofford
127 Mass. 85 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 Mass. 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewer-v-housatonic-railroad-mass-1871.